What Milwaukee can learn from New York

A controversy is brewing in New York City regarding the planned admission fee for the new 9/11 Memorial Museum, which is scheduled to open in mid-May. The museum's board has set the fee at $24, which many consider much too steep even by New York standards. One local newspaper called it an "insult to the people of America," and several family members of 9/11 victims have voiced similar outrage.

Interestingly, arguments on both sides of the New York controversy are relevant and instructive to the debate over the future of arts, cultural and entertainment assets here in Milwaukee.

First, some background.

The fee was set by the 9/11 museum's nonprofit governing body. The museum plans to cover about two-thirds of its $63 million annual operating budget with earned revenue (ticket sales, concessions and gift shop sales) and the rest through philanthropic donations. The $24 fee reflects the level deemed necessary to generate sufficient ticket sale revenue to meet that portion of the revenue budget.

Museum officials also cite the breadth and quality of the museum's exhibits and contend not only that the museum experience will justify the admission price, but also that the price is necessary to ensure excellence for generations to come.

Those who oppose the $24 fee say it is contrary to the museum's mission, which is to attract attendees regardless of income so that all may learn about the "consequences of terrorism." Several critics also have called into question the size of the museum's budget and the salaries paid to museum staff.

Central to this debate is the absence of public funding to support the museum's operations. A proposal to provide $20 million of annual federal funds was rejected by Congress in 2012, and neither the city nor the state has committed operating support. New York City's mayor is urging renewed consideration of federal support to reduce operating budget pressures and to lower the fee, while others say city and state contributions are warranted, as well.

So how is all of this relevant to our local arts and culture funding debate? First, it offers insights into the challenges posed by the business models of virtually all arts and cultural institutions, no matter where they are located.

In "Pulling Back the Curtain," the Public Policy Forum's recent needs assessment of Milwaukee's major cultural and entertainment organizations, we analyze the strengths and weaknesses of those organizations' business models. We find those that do not receive public support — and therefore are particularly dependent on earned revenues and private donations — struggle mightily to set ticket prices and admissions fees at levels that will allow them to balance annual budgets without depressing attendance. While most are adept at doing so, their margins are narrow, which means that efforts to build reserves and invest in basic infrastructure needs can be a prohibitive challenge.

The 9/11 museum example also demonstrates the tension between providing high-quality attractions and maintaining public access. Here in Milwaukee, that tension is particularly acute for publicly owned assets such as the Milwaukee County Zoo and the Milwaukee Public Museum. A primary rationale for the county's ownership was the desire to ensure public access. Ideally, the county would be appropriating sufficient public funds to keep admission fees affordable while also providing the wherewithal to refresh major attractions and otherwise maintain the quality of the venues.

While the public access objective arguably has been met for the zoo and museum, insufficient operating and capital support from the county has created substantial repair backlogs and vast funding gaps for new improvements. Those facility shortcomings, in turn, have a negative impact on attendance, which creates an even greater need for public support and precludes consideration of higher admission fees even if that option was deemed acceptable.

These observations are not meant to imply that more public funding necessarily is the answer. In fact, new research the forum will release next month will describe one metro area that dedicates property tax resources to five major assets in return for a guarantee of free public admission. While this approach has successfully ensured access and maintained the quality of those institutions, it also has caused some to complain about an unfair competitive advantage over other cultural and entertainment assets that do not receive public support and must charge for admission.

Overall, the 9/11 museum debate should help frame our decision-making process in Milwaukee. How do we as a community value access vs. quality when it comes to our cultural and entertainment assets? Are high-quality venues worth having if few can afford to attend them? Conversely, are cultural assets worth supporting if the need to maintain low-priced admissions detracts from their quality?

The answers to those questions will go a long way toward determining whether new or enhanced forms of public funding should be considered and, if so, how those funding mechanisms and their governance should be structured.

Rob Henken is president of the nonpartisan Public Policy Forum. The Forum's recently released report on the region's arts, cultural, recreational, and entertainment assets can be found at http://www.publicpolicyforum.org